Herocyclic derivatives of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are often significant components of environmental contaminant mixtures; however, their contribution to the toxicity of these mixtures is not well characterized. These heterocycles commonly co‐occur in PAH mixtures, which contain agonists for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR). Our goal for these studies was to explore the effects of two PAH heterocycles, carbazole (CB) and dibenzothiophene (DBT), alone and in combination with a PAH‐type agonist for the AHR (β‐naphthoflavone [BNF]) on AHR‐mediated cytochrome P4501A (CYP1A) activity and on fish embryotoxicity. Embryos of Fundulus heteroclitus were exposed to CB or DBT, with and without coexposure to BNF. Carbazole alone slightly induced, whereas DBT alone slightly reduced, in ovo CYP1A‐mediated ethoxyresorufin‐O‐deethylase (EROD) activity compared to control values. However, exposure to CB or DBT reduced in ovo EROD activity in embryos coexposed to BNF. Carbazole and DBT were characterized in vitro as noncompetitive CYP1A inhibitors. Carbazole and DBT enhanced the embryotoxicity of BNF, although neither compound was embryotoxic by itself. The co‐occurrence of CB and DBT with PAH‐type AHR inducers in contaminated ecosystems may increase the toxicity of PAH‐type AHR agonists in these settings and may need to be considered when estimating the embryotoxicity of PAH mixtures.

With appropriate patient selection, the socioeconomic status of patients undergoing LRYGB does not affect postoperative weight loss.

Recent changes in health care delivery systems and in medical training have primed academia for a paradigm shift, with strengthened support for an expanded definition of scholarship. Physicians who consider advocacy to be relevant to their scholarly endeavors need a standardized format to display activities and measure the value of health outcomes to which their work can be attributed. Similar to the Educator Portfolio, the authors here propose the Advocacy Portfolio (AP) to document a scholarly approach to advocacy.Despite common challenges faced in the arguments for both education and advocacy to be viewed as scholarship, the authors highlight inherent differences between the two fields. On the basis of prior literature, the authors propose a broad yet comprehensive set of domains to categorize advocacy activities, including advocacy engagement, knowledge dissemination, community outreach, advocacy teaching/mentoring, and advocacy leadership/administration. Documenting quality, quantity, and a scholarly approach to advocacy within each domain is the first of many steps to establish congruence between advocacy and scholarship for physicians using the AP format.This standardized format can be applied in a variety of settings, from medical training to academic promotion. Such documentation will encourage institutional buy-in by aligning measured outcomes with institutional missions. The AP will also provide physician-advocates with a method to display the impact of advocacy projects on health outcomes for patients and populations. Future challenges to broad application include establishing institutional support and developing consensus regarding criteria by which to evaluate the contributions of advocacy activities to scholarship.